tv [untitled] April 30, 2013 8:00am-8:31am PDT
order, then we were allowed to proceed and make it a faith condition, the cabinet's not turned on, it's placed there as a temporary fix until you determine the outcome of this appeal. once we either have permission to proceed, we will finish construction and grind down the lip or we will remove the cabinet and put the site back to being just a sidewalk, it's not saying the department can't be fixed, they're saying it can't be fixed until we determine this and decide which way to go, as to your item, we have responsibility and liability to what happens based on our facility being in the right-of-way. there's a discussion about mr. yee wanting to expand his use, allegations of graffiti and trash, as required, at&t removes graffiti within three days of notification, there's a toll free number to call if there's graffiti, should the city have to remove the
graffiti, they can xharj the expenses of at&t which goes beyond the city's code, we offered per the mou to mr. yee that we would plant plantings, screening, greening, that offer stands, it's a requirement that we -- something we offered and at the department's request, we will put that in at any location. also just to respond to some things that were raised, mr. yee, we have met with mr. yee, he proposed a few alternate locations, one was at a bus stop, one was near a gas main and one was on top of a hydro main, none were acceptable under the dpw guideline, if the commissioners have any question, i'd be happy to
answer any. >> the alternative locations you just mentioned were presented by the appellant, is that not correct? >> correct. >> and did your client, at&t also present alternative locations? >> yes, absolutely. so, when we originally cutting the -- so, this cabinet has to be within 300 feet of the location, and -- >> 300 feet of what? >> of an existing equipment that at&t already has in the right-of-way, so we went out and survey and had looked for alternate location, we're required to seek a private property location, we reached out to private property owners to see if we could do that, we looked at the existing right of way, we proposed the location, we did a site walk trying to find the best location for the community in that area, came up with this location based on that detailed location.
>> can these facilities be underground? >> new york city it's essentially like a lap top, you can't bury it and still have it function, it's high-tech electronic stuff, it's not just cables and wires that you with put underground. that was described extensively when this was going through the board of appeal and has asked us to provide information to them whether or not that becomes feasible. >> how many of these facilities do you have throughout the city? >> currently, i would have to ask my client the exact number. would you like me to do so? >> yes. >> you can come up to the microphone. >> thank you. >> hi, my name is mark, i'm regional vice-president for at&t, we have thousands of above ground services across the city that serve as connection boxes for wired
telephone networks, the proposal that we have was an upgrade and the permission that we received from the department of planning that was appealed to the board of supervisors and that appeal was denied allows to put up to 126 additional cabinets for this upgrade that will bring fiber optics to our customers. we have built about 68 of them throughout the city, there's 68 that are either in construction now or have completed construction as part of that upgrade. . how many are in the public right of way? >> they're all in the public right of way. >> thank you. >> i should clarify that, all but i believe one is in the public right of way, we did locate one on private property. >> okay, thank you. >> i'll also provide a clarification that at 459, we need to check in to determine whether we can proceed with the remaining. any further questions? thank you, commissioner, i hope
that you support the department's position. >> thank you. >> mr. quan? >> good evening, commissioner, john quan with the department of public works once again. the most critical point, i believe, to this appeal as suggested by the appellant is the information as it relates to the notification, okay. the department's policy as it relates to surface mounted facilities are very specific as prescribed under our dpw order as i believe you were given a copy of, there is a notification requirement specifically on it to inform the public initially of a proposed surface mounted facility location, it is a posting 300 feet from the location in all directions. okay, that was done. when the department received objections, okay, in writing or
by phone or by fax in terms of documentation, once we received an objection, we document that and according to order, we are required a director's hearing to see the merit of these location facilities. the notification the department provides to these objectors would be provided be a dpw order in either an e-mail and as suggested or by mailing to the property owner. further, the notice of the hearing is posted on the department's website for the public's review, so we believe that there is more than sufficient notification from that perspective. it is a reasonable effort and an appropriate effort by the department to provide that notification. the appellant as part of the objection i refer again to the
lip of the facility as stated in our brief to the board, at this point, the permit has been suspended and no additional work can be enacted upon it and in our evaluation of that lip, okay, we do not believe we pose a significant hazard, that it needs immediate remedy, so we will rather wait for an ultimate decision by this board before we further direct the applicant at&t to make any additional either additional remedies to complete the facility or to remove the facility should this permit be overturned. finally, at&t's response and the applicant has suggested that there is no indemnification to property owners because at&t is a utility company, their facilities in the public right of way is at&t's responsibility, so if someone trips and falls or injury
themselves, at&t is legally liable, it does not appear appropriate for at&t to then additionally indemnify a property owner. i don't think that the department had anything additional to add related to beyond the brief and additional comments provided by the appellant, we're mere -- here to answer any questions you may have. >> the notice for the director's hearing is provided by the department, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and you have the mailing list here in terms of where it went to? >> actually, for director's hearings specifically, we notify any objectors only. so, in this case, a letter or the order would have been reported to the objector. >> question, what we heard
about giving the need to be heard from a certain facility, everything that exists around there, would this be potentially the only site kind of remaining for them? >> given that i used to live in the sunset district, i know this area quite well. in this immediate vicinity on 22nd avenue, obviously you have the supermarket, grocery store there, there's a lot of deliveries, okay, and that is problematic as described by both the appellant and at&t. directly across the street to the northeast is walgreens parking lot, there is a current bus stop at that location and the department will not approve a certain amount of facility given that it is a sloping zone. to the northwest, there is a barbershop i believe and there are open windows around the
entire perimeter where placement of this surface mountedbacker mounted facility presents an issue on those kind of situations. in front of benny's donuts, okay, memory serves, along that area, it is a blank wall currently with the united states postal service immediately beyond. the placement of this location near the furnishing zone which is near the parking meters, okay, clears the sidewalk area, so that there should not be any disruption to pedestrian traffic, it is placed currently toward the end of the parking space, so that passengers coming in and out of is vehicle, it should not create an obstruction, this appears to be the best location for the area based on the siting requirements from the department and from the evaluation, it seems appropriate. >> thank you. >> and you've confirmed that it's within the 300 foot of
their existing equipment? >> i cannot speak the that, only at&t can. >> then how do you know that this is the only appropriate site? >> i'm suggesting along 22nd. >> along there only. >> yes. and on irving, it would absolutely not be an appropriate location for these kinds of facilities. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we can take public comment now, can i see a show of hands how many people intend to speak under public comment? okay, thank you. whoever would like to speak first, please step forward. you have three minutes. >> good evening, commissioner, my name is bill barnackle, currently the senior director of the association, the association was established in
1955 and i'm proud to say that we are one of the strongest and active associations in san francisco. i'm here to support my fellow colleague, mr. benny yee who is currently a director with us and he's been a merchant and active supporter for the past 30 years, we're here to appeal the surface mounted facility, the issues we have are the following, as we mentioned prior , our mayor who was currently a director at the time, that was issued and approved on august 17, 2005 at public works states that the department will also ensure that persons faked by the installation of such surface mounted facilities will have an opportunity to be heard before the department issues any permits, to my knowledge, i don't know if this was addressed by mr. yee or if i was ever contacted, i'm still
active and still the director of the association, number 2, a letter dated july 19, 2011, the department of public works, i think you guys have once again, july 19, 2011 and it's a memorandum of understanding for at&t light speed network upgrade in the city of san francisco. on page 2, it says at&t will voluntarily mail notice required under the surface mounted facilities order from 300 feet from proposed locations, at&t will conduct preapplication community meetings and site walks and interesting parties. to my knowledge, i have never taken a walk with at&t and i'm a permitted fik -- fixture on
irving street. once their location is permitted by dpw and at&t will provide free construction notice to residents within 300 feet via door hangers, when i talked to benny about this, i thought maybe it was laundry hangers, it wasn't. it would be consistent with at&t fire commitment, i've never seen this. lastly, you have a letter dated april 4 from our current president of the merchant's association, the most unanimous vote, about the 1 of april at our local monthly meeting in support of mr. yee, so please be fair on this, have it in consideration and thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please.
>> good evening. my name is sylvia hong and i am a real estate broker, i have known benny yee since i was a teenager, he has been a long time public servant, state commissioner for more than 30 year and is is still a states commissioner, he also served on redevelopment agent for 13 years as commissioner, vice-president and as president. he understands all too well the issues and challenges that come with change in diverse communities, especially in such a diversity like san francisco and the importance of the notifications, processes and outreach to communities for projects. mayor ed lee's special [inaudible] in southern china, he's an active member in the
irving street merchant's association and has been for over 20 years. i know him as a fair individual and very proactive so when he and his family spoke about what's happened to the side of their building, i knew that something didn't sound right. we live in the technology age, business transaction relied upon e-mail as form of communication. we also recognize that we cannot take for granted that an e-mail has been received by the other party for important matter. my business practice requires that if i don't hear back from my client, seller or buyer within 24 hours, actually, whatever your practice is, not just real estate, you always follow up with a phone call or we send an e-mail asking for confirmation. dpw and at&t need to do a much
better job with following up and notifying people especially if it is about a hearing date. the first time we saw the e-mail regarding the hearing dates, was this year on february 28, 2013, when it was released by dpw to the office under the sunshine ordinance, at&t is a huge company working with so many resources available to them and yes, their outreach and notification execution is completely lacking. in this day in anal, it -- age, it is hard to understand why they leave it to chance that they got the e-mail or assumed delivery and they cannot do sufficient outreach when no outreach was done to the business corridor where these boxes were directly impacted. please support our request to
move the box. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, board members, my name is olivia sing, i'm a long-time resident of the central sunset living not far from 22nd and irving. i have observed since this box was put up one of the issues that hasn't been brought up yet is the fact that it is the main route for the 71 bus going inbound downtown, quite often the bus stops there, double parked next to cars and the congestion is already quite significant even before this box was built. now that it is there, i have noticed great difficulty of people on the passenger side of the cars that park at the parking spots next to it trying to get out and again it's a neighborhood that is very diverse. we have lots of families with
young children. i observed the other day a young woman trying to get the stroller out of the backseat of the car and set it up and then put the young toddler in it and it was extremely awkward for her at that particular parking spot to have enough move to maneuver the stroller because of the box being there. it is possible i think in the shopping avenue district there from 19th avenue and irving to irving and 27th avenue, there are many other location that is are not as busy, not as congested, they don't have the large supermarket and the loading truck, they don't have the post office and the large and smaller mail trucks that come there all day and the 71 bus which runs 24 hours a day. please give consideration to ask dpw and at&t to be a bit more creative.
there are intersections at 20th and irving, 21st and irving, 22nd, 23rd, and many of those locations have blank walls where they are just building sites and not that much traffic. thank you very much for your attention. >> before you sit down, i have a question, i'm not as familiar with the neighborhood as many of you are. 20th and irving, you're suggesting are better alternatives? >> they're still shopping areas, but the -- >> there's no bus line going down there? >> the bus line is going on 23rd out bound on the south -- excuse me, the west side. >> what about 21st and 20th? >> 21st and 20th are just less congested, not as much traffic.
>> thanks. >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners, my name is benjamin lu, i'm a long time resident of the sunset district, and every day in the morning, i go up to 22nd and irving, have a cup of coffee and donut and deliver my mail, i was sitting all the time watching, it was one of the most heavy traffic in terms of [inaudible] traffic, irving and 22nd because it's so hard to find a parking space so people are jaywalking to drop their mail, their cars are loaded, double parked and i think that it would be more safe if we